PERSOONIA

Published by the Rijksherbarium, Leiden

Volume Part 5, 3, pp. 237-263 (1969)

Notes on European polypores-III.

Notes on species with stalked fruitbody

M.A. Donk

Rijksherbarium, Leiden

For the the most part the species or specific names discussed belong to genus few Albatrellus and Polyporus sensu stricto; a of them belong to S. F. Gray

S. F. It that the of Coltricia Gray. appears not only taxonomy many species

but that of have is far from settled also quite a number protologues never

been scrutinized with care. Here an attempt is made to emend the names Further studies needed before of of a number of species. are some these

be nomenclature determined. species can definitively delimitated and their G. called Polyporus agariceus (König) ex Berk. sensuBourd. & is P. anisoporus

P. P. F. P. lentus Berk, and Mont.; picipes Fr., badius (Pers.) ex S. Gray;

allied forms are referred to P. floccipes Rostk., &c. A recapitulation at the

of the of the conclusions. end paper briefly reviews many

Except in a few cases it has been impossible to associate the specific names discussed

with that still This has necessitated here type specimens are preserved. thorough going study of the protologues. Many of the original descriptions involved are brief and often very incomplete, making determinationof the species difficult, especially

where this is there if no accompanying figures were published. Even not the case are discrepancies between text and figures or else the text is too brief and the figure not readily recognizable. In one of two instances, where the author (Bulliard)

mixture of it looks characters of the dealt with a species, as though occasionally two species were entered in a single figure; this would explain the different inter- pretations.

Moreover some of the species are themselves rather poorly known so far, even species that appear the most often in local lists. To give only one instance, I find

make mind about arcularius. Italian it a most puzzling problem to up my Polyporus

in Northern of this mycologists owe mycologists working Europe a thorough study species.

whole the of As a species Polyporus emend, (including Polyporus sensu stricto,

Leucoporus, Hexagona sensu stricto, and Melanopus) produce very variable fruit-

of be difficult Dwarf with bodies, many which may to identify. specimens a cap of only a few millimetre diameter are occasionally found in species in other fruit- bodies ofwhich the often be much four to ten centimetres in diameter. cap may as as

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. —I am particularly grateful to Mrs. E. van Maanen-Helmer,

Amsterdam, for her painstaking advice in an attempt to improve the English text.

1 Part I in Persoonia Part II appeared 4: 337-343. 1966, in Persoonia 5: 47-130. 1967.

237 Persoonia Vol. Part 238 5, 3, 1969

agariceus. — Boletus agariceus Konig, in herb.; Polyporus agariceus (Konig) ex

Berk. 1843 : 371.

The discussion based the Bourdot following is on assumption that the species that &

Galzin called is it varies (1328: 531) Leucoporus agariceus a 'good' one, even though

to the size of both the fruitbodies and the The to as pores. pores are big enough justify the qualification of ample-pored.

The epithet 'agariceus' used by the French authors must be reconsidered. At

one time Bresadola (19 13: 291) called the European fungus Polyporus agariceus

described from Petch (Konig) ex Berk., a species originally Ceylon. (1916: 89 )

was not convinced that Bresadola had interpreted the species correctly. As conceived

by Bresadola the species would be not only widely distributed in the tropics of

the Old but World, it would also occur in Europe as far north as the Baltic Sea.

Judging from Bresadola's determinationsof certain collections from the Philippine

Islands I think that as far as the Indomalesian region is concerned there is an

earlier for umbilicatus published name the species he had in mind, viz. Polyporus

I it take this for the Jungh. However, regard as premature to up name European

fungus; careful taxonomic study on a world-wide scale is needed beforenomenclative

decisions can be made in this respect. I should not be surprised if certain elements

now referred by North American authors to P. arcularius turned out to be close

to the P. agariceus of European authors and P. arculariformis Murrill ( 1904: 151

These fs. 1-4). forms have a to contract thinner-capped tendency upon drying, which concentrical of causes rugosity the cap and makes the pores look less elongate than in the fresh fruitbody.

In a report on Ceylon fungi Berkeley himselfretracted his species in the following

passage:

"I considered formerly [Polyporus agariceus] as distinct from P. arcularius because it did

not accord with the characters but these have taken from given by Fries, as appear to been Micheli's figure, and Dr. Montagne's plant from the south of France, (of which I have a specimen) is referred to P. arcularius by Fries himself, I have been induced to alter the opinion

I had previously formed."—Berkeley {1834: 497-498).

This argument is far from convincing. I would suggest that Montagne's fungus

P. Bourd. G. I Fries was really agariceus sensu & can see no particular reason why

should have known P. arcularius in its better than other authors. original sense any

As is pointed out below he had not seen it himself when he compiled Micheli's

its from species and validly published name; moreover, it appears his later work

that he had keen in the of the of never particularly insight taxonomy species Polyporus

of the Leucoporus group.

Previous his of to use the name P. agariceus for certain European collections

Bresadola had taken the P. Rostk. up name floccipes (q.v.); this was published later

than P. this is incorrect. Soon after (1848) agariceus. In my opinion interpretation

having fixed upon P. agariceus, Bresadola concluded that the correct name for

the European fungus was Polyporus boucheanus. This, too, I find difficult to accept

(see under 'boucheanus'). Donk: On European polypores 239

Not until more is known about the complex as a whole would I consider the

introduction of a name based on extra-European material for the European taxon.

Mont, This leads to acceptance of the name Polyporous anisoporus Delastre & apud

Mont. (1845) for the European fungus; it was included by Bresadola in his con-

ception of P. agariceus.

anisoporus. — Polyporus anisoporus Delastre & Mont, apud Mont. 1845: 357.

Bresadola first referred this taxon and ( ig15 : 291) to Polyporus agariceus (q.v.) later (Bresadola, igi6: 223) to P. boucheanus (q.v.). The original description strongly

that P. is the earliest available for the suggests anisoporus name European specimens

of the species he had in mind. In the preceding note I mention why for the time

to being I prefer adopt this name as the correct one.

arcularius. — Mich. Polyporus exiguus, pileo hemisphaerico . . . 1729-. 130 pi. 70f. 5; Boletus arcularius Batsch 1783: 97 (devalidated name); Polyporus arcularius

(Batsch) per Fr. 1821 : 342.

The of in still correct interpretation Polyporus arcularius is, my opinion, an open

question. Micheli described it in the pre-Linnaean era: his description is brief

and is in much accompanied by a crude figure with the pores drawn a simplified

Batsch binomial for Boletus arcularius. It should be manner. provided a name it,

Micheli's He pointed out that Batsch based his phrase exclusively on account. had

not seen the species himself, as he made clear by not marking the name with an

he reserved for that he knew from asterisk, a sign species personal experience (see

below Batsch, 1783: 3, 4) • There is no supplementary description. As will be shown

this conclusion is of importance; it is diametrically opposed to what Kreisel (1963:

“P. arcularius wurde Batsch der 136) wrote: zuerst von (1783) aus Umgebung von

Jena in Mitteldeutschland beschrieben." The mere fact that Batsch provided it

with a binomial name is in itself no proof that Kreisel was right; this is implied

by the title of Batsch's "Elenchus fungorum". The book was meant to cover a wider than the of of found scope merely publication personal descriptions fungi

around Jena. He introduced many new binomials, on a large scale for species

depicted by Schaeffer, for instance, apparently without knowing that Schaeffer

himself had done the earlier. same thing many years

Fries accepted Batsch's name in the starting-point book in the recombination

Polyporus arcularius. His treatment consists of a blending of Micheli's account and

the devalidated protologue of Boletus exasperatus Schrader (1794: I55)> Schräder

had cited B. arcularius as synonym of his B. exasperatus, which he described from Germany. The information taken from Schrader's description dominates in that

of Fries. Fries himself had not seen any collection, as is testified by his indication

"v. ic.", which refers to Micheli's figure.

Boletus Schrad. is and the is exasperatus now a forgotten name description scarcely

sufficient for deciding to which of the smaller ample-pored species of Polyporus it Persoonia Vol. Part 240 5, 3, 1969

was given. The habitat ("in arborum truncis") differs from that of the type of

which is fallen be from Micheli's B. arcularius, branches, as can seen figure. It would

seem that the following four taxa should be kept in mind when trying to identify

B. exasperatus: viz. Polyporus floccipes (q.v.) with long spores, and P. agariceus sensu

Bourd. G. P. arcularius Bres. and & (= P. anisoporus), sensu perhaps even ample-

forms of P. all of which have smaller pored brumalis, spores.

Before deciding on the status or the identity of P. arcularius the type of this name

So far no has excluded Micheli's must be agreed upon. one deliberately figure

from the conception covered by the name P. arcularius and its basionym, which

was especially introduced in order to incorporate Micheli's species in the Linnaean

Schrader's of B. arcularius of his system. Furthermore listing as synonym own

B. in with Fries's for the that exasperatus, conjunction preference name was provided

for Micheli's species, together form an impressive set of arguments for leaving the

currently implied typification unimpaired: viz. the fruitbody depicted by Micheli's

it is selected the figure. Accordingly here, making Italy type locality.

It be decided which should with the arcularius. must now species go name Polyporus

distinction Some years ago Kreisel {1963) published a paper devoted to the between three closely related species of Polyporus subgen. Leucoporus. He called them Polyporus

P. ciliatus P. and P. arcularius. The last brumalis, (including lepideus), species was

separated from the two others because of its ample pores and the dissepiments

lacerate their This which in dried specimens are irregularly along edges. second

feature is not without significance, but it must not be overrated; I have seen

specimens of P. brumalis which also show this feature to a pronounced degree.

Kreisel paid attention to only a few gross differential characters; no full

included in his and data left descriptions were paper microscopical were out

completely. What was also omitted was any mentionof the species that under the

name P. agariceus (q.v.) both Bresadola and Bourdot & Galzin had kept distinct from

This makes it difficult decide from Kreisel's alone which P. arcularius. to paper to

taxon he was actually applying the name P. arcularius; I assume that he had P.

anisoporus in mind.

I follow Bresadola and Bourdot & Galzin in distinguishing between P. arcularius

Bres. and the called P. P. Bourdot & sensu fungus they agariceus (= anisoporus).

Galzin called the former P. arcularius var. strigosus Bourd. & G. The other variety

of they admitted within their conception P. arcularius is P. arcularius var. scabellus

Bourd. & G., which is now identified with P. brumalis sensu stricto. They considered that the two varieties were connected by intermediate forms; this thesis deserves special attention from mycologists who live in regions where they regularly come

both In this connection it be recalled that there is also across taxa. may a Polyporus brumalis Kreisel that of these var. megaloporus ( 1963: 133) perhaps represents one intermediates.

far from This Overholts's conception ( 1953: 271) is apparently homogeneous. is testified his but also his Modern North to not only by synonymy by figures. American authors have completely forgotten the existence of Boletus alveolarius Bosc Donk: On European polypores 241

= ( I8II : 84 pi. 4 f. 1) Polyporus alveolarius (Bosc) per Fr. ( 1821: 343); this may

turn out to be the correct name for one of the elements they include in P. arcularius

(cf. P. arcularius sensu Overholts, 1953: pi. 36 fs. 213-216).

b d i — Boletus badius Pers. 1801: badia a u s. 523 (devalidated name); Grifola

S. Schw. (Pers.) per F. Gray 1821; Polyporus badius (Pers. per S. F. Gray) 1832,

P. badius Berk. P. badius P. badius not 1841, not (Berk.) Lev. 1846, not Jungh. ex

Bres. 1912.

Boletus badius Pers. was well described when first published. It was placed in

subdivision laterali." a generic characterized, "Pileo dimidiato stipitato: stipite

I do hesitate in it the that later call not to recognize species Fries was on to Polyporus

In the picipes. specific description compare:

laterali "subcespitosus, pileo glabro tenace badio (castaneo), margine pallidiore, . . . stipite

brevi crasso Hab. ad Salices autumno. Color nigrescente-cinereo. ... I praesentim cavas, /

pilei primo lutescens, et substantia mollis, ille in adultis praesentim in disco depresso spadiceus

et fere nigrescit. Pori in uno latero stipites decurrunt, minuti. / OBS. Variat pileo integro."—

Persoon ( 1801 : 523).

= Persoon listed as synonyms Boletus perennis Batsch (q.v B. durtis Timm), while

B. calceolus Bull, (q.v.) was appended as a variety.

At first Fries (1821: 352) did not differentiate between Polyporus varius and

Boletus badius. He considered the latter to be a mere form of the first (form a). In a

note to this broadly conceived Polyporus varius he then proceeded to describe his

future Polyporus picipes, without actually giving it a name. When he definitely

introduced P. picipes he simultaneously misinterpreted P. varius (q.v.) by reserving

the latter name for certain big forms of the latter species and he continued to refer

Boletus badius of this It is to note not as a synonym conception. astonishing only

that Fries himself did not identify Polyporus picipes with Boletus badius, but also that

other mycologists failed to realize that Fries's restricted interpretation of P. varius

was incorrect.

The for the will be considered in the discussion correct species name present fungus

on P. picipes.

batschii, see perennis Batsch.

Kl. boucheanus boucheanus. —Favolus boucheanus 1833: 316 pi. 3; Polyporus

(Kl.) Fr. 1838.

A most troublesome name given to a European species of Polyporus is Favolus

for boucheanus Kl. There are two rival interpretations this ample-pored taxon.

The first, which is ascribed here to Lloyd for the sake of convenience, associates

the with the that identified with P. name long-spored species Lloyd forquignonii

He of what he [= P. floccipes q.v.). published a photographic picture regarded as

the 86 "the stemmed type specimen (Lloyd, igi 1: f. 306, long one"). Persoonia Vol. Part 242 5, 3, 1969

for what Bresadola (igij: 291) disagreed and revived the name P. boucheanus

called P. Berk, and Rostk. he had previously agariceus (q.v.) P. floccipes (q-v.), a species

with medium-sized “Pol. Boucheanus Kl. habet = spores: typicus, sporas 7-9 3-4 p ibi nec ut in Lloyd: Synopsis of the Section Ovinus p. 86, 12 = 7 p. Polyporus

descriptus est P. lentus Berk, (idem Pol. Forquignonii Quel.!) qui, in Herbario Beroli-

nensi cum Pol. Boucheano Kl. confusus fuit. Polypori Boucheani typici, ad truncos Betulae,

unicum extat habet = specimen, ex parte destructus, quod sporas 7-9 3-4 p." If the that of the problem were merely choosing between two interpretations I,

for would of select that of Bresadola. But is is as that. my part, course not as simple

The protologue of P. boucheanus depicts a few fruitbodies which are all rather short- and the thick-stalked; description states, "Stipes 2-5 lin. crassus, £-unciam longus".

This rules the the which has stalk of about out specimen depicted by Lloyd as type, a

2.5 X 0.7 cm; but in my opinion it also rules out the species that Bresadola had in mind, which is typically slender-stalked and in the examples with short stalks these are relatively much thinner than those depicted by Klotzsch. This leaves us with Klotzsch's protologue as the only guide. His hairs description and figures are not sufficiently detailed. No coarse, hyaline

mentioned and the substratum is not are (but compare, "stipite . . . tomentoso") the usual dead branches but is given as "in truncis emortuis Betulae in other respects the protologue (and especially the figures) would suggest P. lentus. The

also fruitbodies of figures perhaps suggest P. coronatus (poorly developed P. squamosum), but the stalk has far-decurrent and is blackish no pores not (only 'fuscescent'). For still another suggestion as to its identity, see under 'tiliae'. As the name P. boucheanus because is no longer in current use, mainly it would appear, the taxon is in divers and because I make interpreted ways, am not prepared to up my mind about its correct identity, I am forced to consider it not only a nomen ambiguum but also a nomen dubium.

brumalis. — Boletus brumalis Pers. 1794'. 107 / / 757: 27 (devalidated name);

Polyporus brumalis (Pers.) per Fr. 1821: 348.

of brumalis Since no type material was left, the correct interpretation Boletus should be based the which is brief. It primarily on original description, very runs:

“B. brumalis, pileo convexo tenui cinereo-pallido margine ciliato; poris oblongis

candidis. — Bol. lacteus Batsch var. Elench. tab. Prov. ad trunc. a. fung. 42. I

Novemb. Decemb. mense. (Stipes centralis fibrillosus pileo concolore.)" Persoon's

1801 is somewhat detailed. The remained next description ( : 517) more pores

'oblong'. Fries's earliest description (1818: 255) of P. brumalis suggests what has

called since been P. subarcularius q.v.

When Fries ascribed the validly publishing Polyporus brumalis, ( 1821: 348, 5 1 Ö) name to Persoon and cited “B. brumal. Pers. syn. p. 517!" in the synonymy. Hence

His in my opinion this re-publication of the name should not change the type.

and the indicate that in 1821 he conceived description accompanying synonymy the species broadly, apparently including Polyporus lepideus Fr., which he had Donk: On European polypores 243

described previously but which was not mentioned on this occasion. The shape

ofthe a wide Pori 1. pores was given range, "poris subangulatis .... angulati juniores oblongi, . . . denticulati." This description is sufficiently broad for us to assume that the also of original fungus was included. Although not every word Persoon's

will be found there serious original description paired, are no discrepancies, except the ciliate perhaps as to margin, which Fries did not mention.

Thus brumalis should have true Polyporus oblong pores. Nothing is stated explicitly about their size but it be concluded that in view of those Batsch's may depicted on figure cited in the original description these would be rather small. This tends

to exclude the species with 'big' pores, like Polyporus arcularius and P. anisoporus,

P. subarcularius. Batsch's this leaving only figure suggests species too, although

the pores were drawn as thick-walled; apparently they were either not yet fully

developed or else somewhat abnormal. I have seen specimens agreeing exactly with Batsch's figure. The other features of the original description (1794) perhaps

identification do not agree too well, but in myopinion they do not really contradict an of P. brumalis with P. subarcularius. The ciliate margin mentioned in Persoon's

original description might point to the P. arcularius of certain European authors, but the pores of this species, which are much bigger, would not match those of

Boletus lacteus.

When Fries ( 1838: 430) re-introduced P. lepideus the pores of P. brumalis were

emphasized as being 'oblong and angular with thin, sharp dissepiments', rather

than 'minute, round' in P. lepideus. I feel little hesitation in concluding that Fries's emendation fully covers at least P. subarcularius, which occurs in Sweden, where

I collected it.

The above conclusion with that of Kreisel who in addition agrees (1963: 130),

pointed out that as far as Germany is concerned the meaning of the specific epithet

confused 'brumalis' supports the present interpretation. The forms that have been

with the true P. brumalis start forming fruitbodies in the spring.

It is not surprising that for a long time there was confusion with similar species;

the result was often a very broadly interpreted species that became a dumping

ground for all the other species closely or more remotely resembling P. brumalis

sensu stricto.

It is evident that started restrict his at an early stage Bresadola to conception of P. brumalis what Fries called P. He followed Bourdot & to lepideus (?.».). was by

referred Galzin, who the true P. brumalis (as emended by Fries) to a broadened

of fact be interpretation P. arcularius, to which species it seems in to more closely related than to P. lepideus. In more northern countries the name P. arcularius has

often quite been used to designate typical P. brumalis, e.g. by Lundell (1937: 1 4 No. 438; &c.).

calceolus. — Boletus calceolus Bull. 1787-. pi. 360 (devalidated name); Boletus

calceolus (Bull.) per St-Am. 1821; Polyporus calceolus (Bull, per St-Am.) Balbis 1828.

Boletus calceolus Bull, is an extremely troublesome name because the taxon to Persoonia Vol. Part 244 5, 3, 1969

which it was given was not satisfactorily described. It is important to discover the

associated. correct identity of the species with which the name will have to be kept

considered in Its name was revalidated at an early date and should be seriously

connection with the species that is here called Polyporus badius (P. picipes).

It was introduced on Bulliard's plate 360. The tuft of fruitbodies depicted on it is here considered be its Bulliard's of his to type. original conception species presumably included at least two distinct species. Persoon ( 1801 : 523) made of

Boletus calceolus of Boletus badius a variety (Polyporus picipes).

collection According to the data furnished by the figure on Plate 360 the type is remarkable through a combination of several features: its big size, the strongly streaked surface of the and the lack of black the stalk. It makes on the cap, on me

of fruitbodies of impression representing exceptionally big Polyporus varius, except that its surface is dark. The lack of black skin the stalk is easier too complete a on to reconcile with P. varius then with P. badius. In the former species it is not unusual

smaller that only the base of the stalk is black, while I have seen slender-stalked and forms with no sign of black on the stalk at all. The information contained in the

the also P. badius. It is that Bulliard mixed letterpress on plate suggests likely up the from the which makes the choice of this two species start, a type specimen (in

case the depicted tuft of fruitbodies selected above) desirable. (It is not altogether

that Bulliard blended characters of the the unlikely two species on plate.)

The size of the largest fruitbody on Plate 360 is 14 cm across the cap; according

to the accompanying text its size is only average: "Ce champignon est represents ici dans il de diametre." sa grandeur moyenne, y en a qui ont jusqu'ä quince pouces

These bigger dimensionswouldbe almost absurd for P. varius, but not for P. badius; they were presumably taken from collections ofthe latter species; this is also suggested

However by the mention of the substratum as being usual (hollow willows). the streaked surface of the lack of strongly (virgate) the cap, the general shape, and

indication of of the tuft on any a wavy margin (appearing upon drying) depicted

Plate 360 in my opinion point rather to P. varius.

and the According to the text on a later plate (Bulliard, 1789: pi. 455 f. 2) to

final account in the "Histoire", Bulliard ( 1791: 338) eventually found this species

He on very diverse substrata; it also ranged widely in colour, size, and shape.

finally decided that Boletus elegans Bull, (q.v.) and B. calceolus of the earlier plate were merely different expressions of the same species. This second account also

contains sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that he confused at least two

species, P. badius and P. varius.

think that the Boletus calceolus Summarizing, I original is a mixtum compositum of two species, one of which is P. varius, and that this is presumably represented

by the type, the other element being P. badius.

looks of calceolus It as though in the main Quelet's description Polyporus (i888\ 404,

under is in with this identification of Bulliard's with Leucoporus) agreement species

et P. varius: "Peridium . creme chamois ou canelle de brun . . puis raye . . Donk: On European polypores 245

i 1 i — ciliatus c a t u s. Polyporus Fr. 1 5/-y: 123 (devalidated name), not P. ciliatus

Hornem. 1806 ciliatus Fr. Fr. (devalidated name) Polyporus per 1821: 349.

Polyporus lepideus Fr. 1818 : 253 (devalidated name), 1821: 352 (incidental

Steud. mention); Polyporus lepideus Fr. per 1824: 347, Fr. 1832: 146, 1838: 430.

Kreisel () combinedall the minute-pored forms of Polyporus subgen. Leucoporus

occurring in Europe into a single species and several other authors now follow him.

He calls the broadly conceived species Polyporus ciliatus and divides it into two taxa,

viz. forma ciliaris and forma lepideus. The former corresponds to P. ciliatus Fr., the

latter to P. Fr. A third form to this is P. vernalis lepideus belonging complex q.v. It should be that pointed out Bourdot & Galzin (1928: 530) had come to nearly

the same conclusion, but they called the species P. brumalis. With this name they

accepted Bresadola's interpretation of it, but while Bresadola clearly restricted it

P. Bourdot Galzin only to lepideus, & gave it a much wider scope, without, however, mentioning the name P. lepideus, and without describing a form exactly agreeing with P. ciliatus, another name they did not mention. Yet I think that Kreisel would have included a good portion of theirP. brumalis in his forma ciliatus; this P. ciliatus further includes P. and I would that what called P. vernalis; finally suggest they brumalis f. crassior f. 2 referable and rubripes is to P. lepideus. Polyporus brumalis as redefined Kreisel treated Bourdot Galzin of by was by & as a variety P. arcularius; it corresponds to P. brumalis f. subarcularius Donk = P. subarcularius (Donk) Bond.

Further observations on this matter are still urgently needed.

For correct of P. ciliatus it be useful a interpretation (sensu stricto) may to point out that Fries, when he first published the species (1815), did not definitely include

Boletus ciliatus Hornem., although he borrowed its epithet. His phrase is followed by "Disp. Bol. msc." (apparently referring to a manuscript by Fries that was never published under this title); and he added the remark, "An distinctus ab B. ciliato

Fl. Dan., qui ad hunc 1. P. circularium [= arcularium] pertinet. In the Systema

he listed (1821) Boletus ciliatus Hornem. as under P. brumalis. ("Fl. Dan.") synonym

coriaceus Huds., see lobatus.

Rostk. coronatus. —Polyporus coronatus 1848: 33 pi. 17.

It is evident that Polyporus coronatus belongs to the same section as Polyporus squamosus, which is characterized by rather long spores. The original plate shows the stalk to be short and thick, with the tube-layer decurrent right down to the

that it is decide whether the stalk very base, so impossible to or not may develop a black base (P. squamosus group sensu stricto) or produce spiny, hyaline hairs

However the that the stalk is black its base (P. floccipes). text states at and, moreover, that the fruitbody develops "an in Faulniss iibergehenden Buchenstammen"; these

2 Identified with Polyporus rubripes Rostk., which certainly is something different because of its big pores. Persoonia Vol. Part 246 5, 3, 1969

rather features, combined with the plump fruitbody (as drawn), as well as with the

for which rule out P. distinctly scaly cap, no strigose hispidity is mentioned, floccipes

(= P. lentus) and refer P. coronatus to P. squamosus.

It is likely that in the main the species was correctly interpreted by Bourdot &

Galzin of {1928-. 525; as a subspecies Melanopus squamosus): no hispidity on cap

distinct short stalk "reticule les la base ordinaire- or stalk, scales, par pores jusqu'a ment noiratre"; the habitat however, is different from that of Rostkovius's fungus:

branches tenant a hetre Bourdot Galzin "sur mortes, l'arbre, . . & regarded

M. their subspecies as "evidemment une forme de squamosus reduite dans ses dimen-

true sions par son habitat sur branches mortes d'un petit diametre . . If this is

P. coronatus does not deserve even the rank of a subspecies or variety.

to Malen9on (1992: 41) came a different conclusion. He thought that P. coronatus

of formed part the P. lentus [= P. floccipes) complex which he, therefore, started to

call Melanopus coronatus. This is in partial agreement with Bourdot & Galzin, who

" remarked: M. coronatus] passe aux formes suivantes [M. forquignonii, M. lentus]

par des specimens qui ont meme aspect et meme taille, mais a ecailles plus etroites,

bords subcilies decurrence a 1-3 pointes hyalines redressees, avec du chapeau et

des le If these forms intermediate between pores ciliee-plumeuse sur stipe." are really

P. coronatus and P. floccipes, then Malengon's point of view would prevail. It is still

that possible, however, they are only seemingly intermediate and in reality ought

be referred to P. In do with the to floccipes. any case they not agree original plate

of P. coronatus.

cristatus. — Boletus cristatus Schaeff. 7774: 93 [pis. 316, 317] (devalidated

name), not B. cristatus Gouan 1765 (devalidated name), not B. cristatus Gmel. 1792

(devalidated name); Polyporus cristatus (Schaeff.) per Fr. 1821, not P. cristatus Fr.

Albatrellus cristatus Kotl. 1838; (Schaeff. per Fr.) & P. 1957.

cristatus Schaeff. Pers. 1801 [Boletus sensu : 522] ; Polyporus cristatus Fr. 1838:

447, not P. cristatus (Schaeff.) per Fr. 1821.

There are two taxa of the name Polyporus cristatus. The first is P. cristatus (Schaeff.)

per Fr. 1821. When Fries published this name he had compiled his conception of

the from He taxon literature, not having seen any collections himself. indicated

that he had these "Schaeff. seen figures ("v. ic."): were t. 316, 317 reproduced

in part by "Nees syst. f. 217" (as Boletus cristatus), and "Schaeff. t. 113, mala'

(as Boletusflabelliformis). The type, therefore, is the same as that of the devalidated

basionym, Boletus cristatus Schaeff., the protologue of which includes the two plates

and The herewith selected 316 317. specimens depicted on plate 316 are as type. in This is done view ofthe exclusion ofplate 317 ["17"] by Secretan ( 1833 : 74).

Then Fries his mind. Under his of changed new conception Polyporus cristatus

he stated: tam in Scania austr. in due. "Postquam quam Mecklenburg copiose

legerim mox perspexi differentiam B. cristati Sch." Although he referred back to

the "Systema" (1821) he excluded ( 1838: 447) Schaeffer's taxon, only to fuse it

with his erroneous conception of Boletus lobatus Gmel. (q.v.) under the name Polyporus Donk: On European polypous 247

lobatus. the In this way second taxon with the name Polyporus cristatus came into being.

" Fries indicated that it with B. cristatus Schaeff." also agreed Pers. syn. non and "Hie stated verus Fung. cristatus Bocc. et Vet." Persoon ( 1801: 522) in his turn referred back to a previous publication (Persoon, 1800: 125 & °f- his Corrigenda)

in which he revised The theoretical of Fries's second P. gave a phrase. type cristatus, herewith is collection selected, a studied by Persoon before 1800 (presumably

collected in It of Germany). must be understood, however, that the type Boletus

cristatus 1801" itself Persoon "Pers., Syn. Fung. 522. was not changed; merely

applied B. cristatus Schaeff. The citation of'Pers.' without the simultaneousexclusion of 'Schaeff.' must be taken as an indirect reference to 'Schaeff.'

Several later mycologists started replacing the author's citation 'Schaeff.' by

'Pers.'; others continued to ascribe the epithet to 'Schaeff.' Inevitably still others

mixed When the recombination Albatrellus cristatus introduced got things up. was

" its authors wrote Albatrellus cristatus (Pers. ex Fr.) n.c. = Polyporus cristatus (Pers.)

1821." In be renounced favour ex Fr., Syst. myc. 1: 356. this case 'Pers.' should in of the more complete reference to Fries, 1821. This makes the basionym the name

pertaining to the 'first' P. cristatus.

The be question to answered is, what is Boletus cristatus Schaeff. as represented

Plate The 'fasciculate' with deformed of by 316? plate suggests a fruitbody pilei

what is currently called Polyporus [Albatrellus] cristatus; the colours of the plate

this conclusion. It should be support pointed out that the accompanying text

describes the "& solitarius & fascicu- (Schaeffer, 1774. opposite pi. 316) species as

neither losus", and mentions the consistency nor the substratum. In the "Index

the binomial with primus" (pages numbered) Boletus cristatus was published a different ad truncos arborum which description (". . . solitarius, lignosus ...... ")

does not really suggest P. cristatus; however there is a reference to the one previous description by Schaeffer himself; this accompanies the Plates 316 and 317. After

hesitation I think that after all the selected does some plate (316) as type represent the modern conception of P. cristatus.

It was Secretan (1833: 55) who noted that the second description published by Schaeffer did not match the fungus that he (Secretan) called Polyporus flabellatus and which is P. cristatus. He excluded Plate from now regarded as belonging to 317 his conception of P. cristatus and applied this name to what might well be a form of Laetiporus sulphureus, which species is indeed suggested by Schaeffer's second

(and erroneous) description. As already pointed out by Secretan, the piece of

from wood added to the fruitbody in the figure that Nees von Esenbeck copied

Schaeffer's work was a concession to the substratum mentioned by Schaeffer in his second description. There can be little doubt that Secretan's remarks induced Fries to exclude Schaeffer's plates (hence also including the type) from his of P. cristatus. It be mentioned that Secretan described new conception may

P. cristatus under two names: P. flabelliformis and P. subsquamosus; the second was

His misapplied. description of P. subsquamosus strongly suggests a fasciculate group of fruitbodies of P. cristatus (modern sense) as depicted on Schaeffer's plate 316; 248 Donk: On European polypores

. . imbricatis compare also Fries's description of his second P. cristatus, "ramosus . . . ..

Valde versiformis."

cyathoides. — Boletus melanopus var. cyathoides Sw. 1810: 10 (devalidated

Fr. name); Polyporus melanopus var. cyathoides (Sw.) per 1821; Polyporus cyathoides

(Sw. per Fr.) Quel. 1872, misapplied.

The original description of Boletus melanopus var. cyathoides is as follows: ". . . pileo

minor. infundibuliformi striato-radiato, fasciis obsoletis; stipite excentrico, . . . /

Stipes excentricus, uncialis, niger. Pileus centro depressus striis radiatis fasciis

obscurioribus Afarten ar mindre med excentrisk fot och hatten versus marginem. . . .

prydd med circulara ringar, rostfargad eller gra." This rather strongly resembles

Pers. and Fries and identified a description of Boletus melanopus (1821: 348; onwards)

the two without restrictions.

Quelet ( 1872 : 270) raised this variety to specific rank as Polyporus cyathoides, but form of the ciliatus corrected misapplied the name to a P. group, an error by Quelet himself and by Fries; they called Quelet's fungus P. vernalis (q.v.).

Batsch. d u r u s, see perennis

e 1 e g a n s. —Boletus elegans Bull. 1780: pl. 46 (devalidated name), not B. elegans Bolt. 1788 (devalidated name), not B. elegans Schum. 1803 (devalidated name) per Fr. 1838; Polyporus elegans (Bull.) per Trog. 1832, misapplied; Melanopus elegans

Pat. Rolland (Bull, per Trog) 1887 (nomen nudum), apud 1890.

[Boletus elegans Bull, sensu Fr. 1838: 440 (as Polyporus)]; Polyporus varius subsp.

Konr. & M. elegans Donk 1933". 139 ["Fr. . . . (nonBull.)"] ; Melanopus elegans

2 non not M. 1933: pi. 426 f. ["(Fries) . . . Bulliard"], elegans (Bull, per Trog)

Pat. apud Rolland 1890.

The identity of Boletus elegans Bull, is not easily assessed. It is possible that the

fruitbodies old had depicted on the original plate were and undergone some

chemical which had their "comme treatment changed colour; compare, [ce Bolet]

est un Mets friand les insects il faut a differentes fois a la ... pour l'exposer vapeur

du soufre". Donk ( 1933: 139) refused to recognize in it the form of Polyporus varius

which Fries described under this Bulliardian in this Fries assimilated Bulliard's name;

fungus as "var. saturatior".

form of calceolus In later work Bulliard considered his B. elegans to be a mere B.

and the for time before restored (q.v.) name disappeared some being by Trog (1832: 553), perhaps for Polyporus badius (P. picipes): "Der Hut ist glatt, kastanien- braun Fries but this time the name was to . . (1838: 440) followed, applied typical

this became used. P. varius (q-v.): "pileo . . . pallido"; application widely

I find it difficult make mind about the Bulliard but to up my fungus depicted, after all I cannot see in it either P. badius (as presumably Trog did) or P. elegans

Hence decide favour of sensu Fr. I am again (cf. Donk, I.e.) forced to in P. varius, Donk: On European polypores 249

particularly the big, dark coloured form, rather than the form with pale cap and

slender stalk for which Fries took it. B of Bulliard's is chosen more Figure plate 46

here as representing the lectotype.

of Authors who have been aware the discrepancy between Bulliard's fungus and

the which Fries the Fries's with the one to applied name, retaining conception

explicit exclusion of Bulliard's fungus, introduced a new taxon according to the

"Code": varius M. present Polyporus subsp. elegans Donk, Melanopus elegans Konr. &

Authors who wish to continue to distinguish between Fries's fungus and what

is currently called Polyporus varius should, in my opinion, adopt the denomination

for P. varius (Pers.) per Fr. sensu stricto it.

floccipes. — Polyporus floccipes Rostk. 1848: 25 ("“floccopes”) pi. 13 (“floccopus”).

So far the of Rostk. does correct interpretation Polyporus jloccipes not seem to

have been settled satisfactorily. Bresadola (1303: 72) ascribed medium-sized spores

what to it (cylindrical, 7-9 X 3-3.5 p.). Afterwards he included this conception in

he first called P. agariceus (q.v.) and then P. boucheanus (q.v.). A look at Rostkovius's

plate suggests not only the species Bresadola had in mind but also some forms

that North American authors have included in their conception of P. arcularius:

for instance Overholts 216. compare 1933. pi. 36fs. 213,

However, meticulous inspection of Rostkovius's plate with a handlens and

careful text Hut Haaren perusal of the raise doubts; compare: "Der ist . . mit

die ihm ein Ansehen Rand ist besetzt, schuppenartiges geben. Der ...... ge-

franzt. Der Stiel ist wie der Hut. Unten an der Wurzel ist er mit ...... schuppig

Haaren weissen, abstehenden, 3"' langen besetzt." This last character even suggested

the On the the hairs the and base of the stalk specific epithet. plate on cap are

shown to be coarse and white. The general habit and robust appearance of the

fruitbodies close of lentus. This in depicted come very to the original figure P.

combination with the from Rostkovius's has above-quoted passage description

convinced me that P. floccipes belongs to the P. lentus complex.

globularis. —Polyporus globularis Pers. 1823: 44 = Polyporus exiguus, coriaceus,

adnascens albus, lignis Mich. 1729 : 130 pi. 70 f 7.

is described and Polyporus globularis Pers. a name given to a fungus depicted by

Micheli. The description is too short for certainty: besides the phrase cited above,

Micheli also wrote "Fungus porosus, minor, candidus, siccioris substantiae, . . . D.

Clarissimo Sherardo communicato." The Breynii, ex libro depicto a type locality

is presumably northern Germany or Pland; J. Breyne (1637-1697) lived in

slender-stalked with Danzig, now Gdansk. The figure shows a single fruitbody

from thin branch. central, half-globular cap, growing a

This be form of the Polyporus brumalis rather, a 'numularius' may some complex or,

form ofP. varius in weathered, bleached condition (such as is depicted by Konrad &

but black base of the stalk mentioned Maublanc, 1935: pi. 428 f. /), no was or

drawn. Somewhat of a nomen dubium. Persoonia Vol. Part 250 5, 3, 1969

lateralis. — Boletus lateralis Bolt. iyBB\ 83 pl. 83 (devalidated name) per

Hook. Boletus 1821, not lateralis Bundy 1883 (n.v.); Polyporus varius var. lateralis

(Bolt, per Hook.) Pers. 1825.

and colour as the and the remark that "the root is Shape appearing on plate ... black" (a colour not indicated on the plate) assign this fungus to the synonymy of

Boletus varius Pers.; Persoon himself listed it accordingly. Bolton said "I have seen old specimens elsewhere, of a dark dusky brown colour, and of a substance as hard and firm almost as oaken wood". Might these specimens perhaps have been

Polyporus badius?

1 e n t u — lentus Berk, i860: 16 s. Polyporus 237 pi. f. 1.

Polyporus lentus Berk, was originally described from branches of Ulex. For some

time mycologists did not know precisely what to do with it, whether to associate it with the of P. forms of group squamosus (long spores) or with the ample-pored

the P. brumalis complex (medium-sized spores). Bourdot & Galzin made it a sub-

of species P. squamosus and a study ofBerkeley's material by Bresadolaand Malenson

has shown that it had of lentus indeed the long spores of this species. Separation P. from P. has be untenable. with forquignonii proved to However I cannot agree

that P. also be included in broadened Malenson coronatus (q.v.) must a conception of P. lentus.

Bourdot & Galzin the in P. (1928: 525-527) included P. lentus complex squamosus

as two subspecies. The link between them would be certain forms of P. coronatus.

According to Bourdot & Galzin the latter "passe aux formes suivantes [P . forquignonii,

ecailles P. lentus] par des specimens qui ont meme aspect et meme taille, mais ä

ä bords du subcilies plus etroites, 1-3 points hyalines redressees, avec chapeau et

decurrence des le as pores ciliee-plumeuses sur stipe." Malengon (ig2g: pi. 34, such Leucoporus forquignonii) depicted a form apparently closely approaching

be referred lentus Later specimens; they may provisionally to the P. complex.

he also defended the of the P. lentus on (Malencjon, 1952: 42) specific autonomy

complex from P. squamosus and I have followed him, without, however, calling it

P. coronatus. This assignment of specific rank to the P. lentus complex and,

perhaps, also to P. coronatus is strongly recommended for future research.

So far the correct name for P. lentus has not been convincingly settled. I am inclined

to refer the earlier published P. floccipes (q.v.) to this complex. The possibility that

excluded. P. boucheanus (q.v.) is a still earlier name should not as yet be completely

Compare also the discussion on P. tiliae.

1 i d ciliatus. e p e u s, see

leptocephalus. — Boletus leptocephalus Jacq. 1778: 142 pi. 12 (devalidated

name); Polyporus leptocephalus (Jacq.) per Fr. 1821; Melanopus varius f. leptocephalus

(Jacq. per Fr.) Bourd. & G. 1925. Donk: On European polypores 251

Boletus leptocephalus Jacq. was well described and depicted. The picture shows

short-stalked fruitbodies thick branches. The comparatively growing on rather colour of the indicates that it had rather distinct and cap ('cervinus') a only slightly torn pellicle. Persoon and Fries (who knew the species from the original account alone) upheld it because the stalk lacked black. Even so I have little reason to hesitate refer to B. leptocephalus to Polyporus varius and to compare it especially with the form that has been called P. numularius. Bourdot & Galzin (1928: 528) reported

les determinations de serait forme that, "D'apres Quelet, ce une de M[elanopus] elegans ou nummularius, selon la taille, a stipe unicolore, assez allonge, qui se rencontre quelquefois."

— 1 o b a t u s. Boletus lobatus Gmel. 1792 : 1435 (devalidated name); Polyporus lobalus Fr. Boletus coriaceus Huds. (Gmel.) per 1898: 448, misapplied; = 1778:

not B. coriaceus B. coriaceus 625 (basionym), Scop. 1772 (devalidated name), not

Batsch 1783 (devalidated name), not B. coriaceus Batsch 1786 (devalidated name).

Fries ascribed — ( 1898 : 448) the name Polyporus lobatus to "Gmel. Schrad.

162 excl. " sp. p. syn. (inclusove P. imbricato) and re-introduced it to replace Polyporus cristatus Fr. 1821 In he (Schaeff.) per ("Schaeff. I. 919, 916"). so doing apparently committed two errors. First, P. cristatus (Schaeff.) per Fr. 1821 ( q.v.) and P. cristatus

Fr. the the lobatus taken 1838 are same species. Secondly, basionym ( Boletus Gmel.)

by Fries is a of Murrill. up synonym Laetiporus sulphureus (Bull, per Fr.) The of the history Boletus lobatus Gmel. is briefly as follows. The taxon to which name was given was originally called Boletus coriaceus Huds.: "acaulis coriaceus convexus lobatus flavus laevis, poris tenuissimis." The phrase in itself is not quite

for adequate determining the fungus, but this is remedied by the two synonyms and the other references cited and by the habitat ("in truncis arborum"). The name was accepted by Willdenow (1787: 392). Gmelin changed it into Boletus lobatus, with retention of the original phrase; his only (indirect) reference is to

Willdenow. Hence Boletus lobatus Gmel. = Laetiporus sulphureus.

It is evident that Fries did not apply Polyporus lobatus in this sense. Apparently he had something abnormal before him so that Bresadola ( 1897 : 69) dismissed

Fries's cristatus induratus". I whether fungus as Polyporus "status vetustus, am not sure he was correct but can offer no alternative opinion.

— Fr. Mont. montagnei. Polyporus montagnei ("in litt.") ex 1896: 341;

Fr. 1898: 434, not P. montagnei Bres. 1916; Coltricia montagnei (Fr. ex Mont.)

Murrill 1820.

Fr. Mont, exclusive of [Polyporus montagnei ex sensu Quel. 1872 : 269 pi. 17 f.

Mont. type]; Polyporus montagnei Bres. 1916: 240, not P. montagnei Fr. ex 1836.

The correct identity ofPolyporus montagnei has become a puzzle that needs special attention because of the conflicting views published about it. The following is a brief review of them. Polyporus montagnei Fr. was published by Montagne at an Persoonia Vol. Part 252 5, 3, 1969

early date (1836) and ascribed to Fries, "in litt."; type locality, "dans la Garenne

de Sedan" in northern France. At a later date Montagne determined a collection

from Algeria in the same way; no description was given but a coloured figure of

In a fruitbody was published (Durieu & Montagne, 1846-g: pi. 33/ 2). my opinion

it Coltricia cinnamomea. The next was taken represents important step by Quelet of his It be from the (1872), who published a new description own. must stipulated

that he did describe under he outset not a new species a homonymous name; gave

the author as "F." without more and remarked that the fungus was "d'abord

trouve dans une foret des Ardennes par Montagne."

that there Lloyd (igo8a: 7) concluded were two species involved. In connection

with Polystictus cinnamomeus he remarked that the author of this name, Jacquin,

such drawn colored that I do how his work be ". . . gave a correctly picture not see can this is the known in that with it in Fries ignored, and only plant Europe agrees any respect.

carried it doubtful never referred any plant to Jacquin's picture, and as a species through

all his works. He balked at the one word 'fragilis' in Jacquin's description, as Persoon had

done before, and he called the plant when he received it from France Polyporus Montagnei.

herbarium the same our American The co-types in Montagne's are as plant [that Lloyd

called cinnamomeus has of it in Polystictus ]. Bresadola given a very good figure Fung. Trident,

not as bright however as our American plant. The coloring of Quelet's figure (T. 17) is too

yellow and the plant too obese. I think it must be some other species but know no plant

that with it in agrees any degree."-—Lloyd ( igo8a: 7).

From accompanying descriptions and figures I conclude that Lloyd interpreted

Coltricia cinnamomea correctly and in the same sense as Bresadola; that he was the

first that of which referred to C. cinna- to assume two species were involved, one was

momea; and that he did not examine the specimen from Montagne that Fries has

studied.

afterwards issued Letter in which in Very soon Lloyd a special (igo8b : 1) some

he altered his conclusions above: respects as quoted

in Fries' herbarium the and also collections "There are original types, sent by Montagne,

by Quölet which are the same plant, and as soon as we saw them we recognized that they

referred above Whether or can not possibly be our American plant, to [C. cinnamomea ]. not

in herbarium the same as found in Fries' we the co-types Montagne's are herbarium, prefer

until but from not to say we re-examine them, our recollection, they are not."—Lloyd(igo8b: i).

similar those in Bresadola ( 1916 : 240) came to conclusions to expressed Lloyd's

first in Herbario idem note: "Typus ex Montagne parisiensi est ac Polyporus perennis

in de et des (L.) Fr.; typus vero Queletii, a Queletio 'Champignons Jura Vosges' He between depictus, species est diversa . . .." proceeded to distinguish two

homonymous species, of which the one he ascribed to Quelet he accepted

identifying it with Polystictus obesus Ell. & Ev. and Polyporus lignatilis Britz.

As pointed out at the beginning of the present note it is not correct to accept

that differs from P. Mont.' a species Polyporus montagnei 'Quel.' montagnei 'Fr. ex

introduce but the simply because Quelet did not a new species merely applied

latter his exclusion of the ofP. Fr. Mont, it Bresadola name. By type montagnei ex was Donk: On European polypores 253

himself who in fact published a later homonym (P. montagnei Bres.) based on P.

montagnei sensu Quel.

material in his herbarium also Gilbertson Montagne's (PC) was inspected by

(1954- 231 f 2), who concluded that it agrees with the current American concept

[of P. montagnei] and differs markedly from Polyporus perennis, particularly in the spores and context hyphae."

From the above discussion it follows that Montagne's collection in Paris was

determined three different cinnamomeus as belonging to species: as Polystictus by

and Lloyd, as Polyporus perennis by Bresadola, as Polyporus montagnei sensu auctt. by Gilbertson. What is needed is a careful analysis of the protologue to see whether it is Such possible to decide who was correct. an analysis brings to light three

conclusions: (i) that the name came from Fries, but that the validating description was Montagne's; (ii) that Montagne's material was already scanty when he drew

the and that his P. up description; (iii) description clearly points to montagnei as currently understood.

Ad (i). What Fries wrote to Montagne the latter rendered thus: "Proximus

P. tomentoso sub. sed abunde (Rostk. . . . nom. Polypori rufescentis) et P. perenni Fr.,

diversus Fr. in litt." There is no description.

Ad (ii). Montagne also wrote, "Ayant adresse au professor Fries mes echantillons les plus complets, on en trouvera sans doute une bonne description (meilleure

le faire dans surtout que je ne pourrais avec ceux qui me restent), 1'Epitome regni

mycologici [= Epicrisis 1838]."

Ad suberoso molli (iii). Montagne's description runs: "pileo azono, tomento leproso secedente tecto stipitique deformi ferrugineis, poris rotundis ampli integris obtusis." This clearly excludes Coltricia cinnamomea and C. perennis but it agrees well with Polyporus montagnei, current sense.

The improved description that Montagne expected from Fries (1838: 434) did

Fries's is of that of with few brief not materialize; phrase a copy Montagne, a observations appended. Thus, Polyporus montagnei "Fr. 1838" is technically based

Mont. on the same material as P. montagnei Fr. ex 1836, viz. the material that remained in Montagne's herbarium. The material in Upsala must be rated as an isotype.

numularius. — Boletus “nummularius” Bull. 1782'. pi. 124 (devalidated

numularius name); Polyporus varius var. (Bull.) per Fr. 1821; Boletus numularius (Bull,

Merat 1821; numularius Pers. Boletus per Fr.) Polyporus (Bull, per Fr.) 1825; — ramulorum Gmel. 1792 (devalidated name).

of excellent and The original plate and description Boletus numularius Bull, are leave no shadow of doubt about the fungus the author had in mind. It is the small, slender form of Polyporus varius, with rather dark coloured cap (but very often soon

small branches: weathered to white) and growing on "il ne vient jamais que sur le bois seulement de l'on terre." mort, et sur menus branchages que trouve par

It has long been in doubt whether this taxon deserves independent specific Persoonia Vol. Part 254 5, 3, 1969

status; at present it is usually referred to as a form, variety, or subspecies of Polyporus

varius sensu Fries (that is, the big form with similarly coloured and streaked cap).

I have collected it many times and studied quite a number of herbarium specimens

and no longer doubt that it is merely an extreme growth form of P. varius,

as other mycologists had conclude earlier.

perennis. — Boletus perennis Batsch 1783: 103 & 1876: 182, 184 pi. 23 f i2g

L. Boletus durus (devalidated name), not B. perennis 1753 (devalidated name); =

= Timm 1788 (devalidated name); Boletus batschii Gmel. 1792 (devalidated

name).

As stated under 'badius', Persoon referred Boletus perennis Batsch to P. badius

(P. picipes) and I do not hesitate to followhim in this. Batsch's second and amplified

description (1786: 182, 184) contains, inter alia: "Der Hut ist glatt, rostfarben,

zarten von und mit unscheinbaren dunkeln Linien überzogen .... [Der Rand] ist

einer mehr rothbraunen Farbe ist einer ins nussbraune [Der Stiel] von grauen

schielende Unterende aber Schwarz berust. Ich fand dieser Art in ... Farbe, am . . .

hohlen Weiden, allemahl schon trocken und hart."

Polyporus varius (big form) is fleetingly called to mind, for instance in connection

with the "zarten unscheinbaren dunkeln Linien" the but there is much on cap, too

other evidence (in particular Batsch's coloured figure) to counterbalance this

supposition.

Timm The name Boletus perennis being preoccupied, it was replaced by B. durus

and B. batschii Gmel.

— Fr. picipes. [Polyporus sp., unnamed, Fr. 1821 : 353]; Polyporus picipes

= Rostk. 1838: 440; Polyporus picipes 1848.

overlooked the As explained in the discussion on Boletus badius Pers., Fries identity of his Polyporus picipes with the Persoonian species. The latter he originally included

under Polyporus varius. When he excluded both P. picipes and his conception of

P. elegans from this broadly conceived taxon, he left Boletus badius attached to the

residue and it has since remained there. In this Fries committed as a synonym way

the Boletus badius should have remained associated with the two errors, (i) name

P. and the P. varius retained for the residue should have segregate picipes, (ii) name the of the Fries called P. been applied as correct name segregate elegans.

These have caused authors fail between errors many European to to distinguish Pilat restored P. badius and P. varius sensu Fries 1838 (discussed under 'varius') until

of which it deserves. He first P. badius to the status an independent species, fully

varius but the P. for it. called it (erroneously) P. soon adopted name picipes

In later work Fries cited the "Systema" as the place of publication of the name

Polyporus picipes and his reference has been consistently copied by later authors.

What that Fries described the in actually happened, however, was species a note

in the "Systema" ( 1821: 353) without giving it a name. This he did only in 1838, Donk: On European polypores 255

thus a considerable time after Boletus badius Pers. was re-validated and had become available badia S. in which I as Grifola (Pers.) per F. Gray 1821, accept as basionym for the correct name. In view of another name validly published earlier, in the

hesita- year 1821, viz. Boletus calceolus Bull, per St-Am. {q.v.) it is only with some tion that I do this. This I consider be of P. varius name now to a synonym sensu lato.

Rostk. Polyporus picipes ( 184.8 : 39 pi. 20) was published as a new species,

"Rostkovius" being given as the author's citation. Fries (1874: 535) wrote of this

"singulare errore s.n. P. picipedes ut nova species descriptus, sed mea diagnosis [Fries,

verbatim This 1838: 440] veri transcripta". being the case, P. picipes 'Rostk.' must

stand of P. Fr. The is rather as a typonym picipes accompanying plate a good picture of Fries's species.

subarcularius. — Polyporus brumalis f. subarcularius Donk 1933 : 133, 134;

subarcularius Bond. Polyporus (Donk) 1953: 470 f 121.

This taxon was introduced while Polyporus brumalis was still a poorly defined and variously interpreted species fromwhich P. ciliatus Fr. emend. Kreisel (including

P. lepideus Fr.) had not yet been removed. Forma subarcularius was designed to receive the element that is here called P. brumalis (sensu stricto).

— Boletus L. subsquamosus. subsquamosus 1793 : 1178 (devalidated name);

Polyporus subsquamosus (L.) per Fr. 1821.

[Boletus subsquamosus L. sensu Wulf. 1789: 342]; Boletus carinthiacus Pers.

1801: 514 (devalidated name); Polyporus carinthiacus (Pers.) per Roques 1832.

In my opinion it is rather evident what species Linnaeus {1733: 453) had in

mind when he Boletus Albatrellus published subsquamosus: ovinus (Schaeff. per Fr.)

Kotl. & in of Sweden. 3 "Pileus P., a common species many parts Compare: magnus albido-flavescens convexus carnosus margine acutus, nec glaber nec viscidus, sed

Pori difforminivei. brevis saepe subsquamosus. Stipes glaber aut venoso-reticulatus."

It would be quite a coincidence if, among the few species of pore-fungi described

Linnaeus by Boletopsis griseus (Peck) Bond. & S. had been hidden away in a

be in Sweden—if it misleading description. Boletopsis griseus seems to very rare

actually occurs in that country at all.

When Fries Linnaeus's 4 ( 1813 : 122) accepted species he added an extensive

description. The phrase runs: "pileo carnoso albido subsquamoso, poris oblongis

3 similis Pouz. differs in Albatrellus ( 1966: 274 pis. 5, 6) having amyloid spores. When,

quite recently, I was collecting fungi in Carinthia (from where Polyporus carinthiacus, mentioned below, was described) I could not distinguish satisfactorily between the two species [?] in the

The described also in field. fungus recently may occur Sweden.

4 Which he undoubtedly considered to be an integral part of his conception. Fries ( 1838: of the Suec. !" 428) even added a note exclamation to reference "Linn. 1250 [= 1755: 453]. Persoonia Vol. Part 256 5, 3, 1969

flexuosis niveis, stipite brevi centrali", which reads almost like an extract from

Linnaeus's in it does not different description; any case readily suggest a species.

In the main the description supports the conclusion that Fries was also describing

A. ovinus forma varia albus ("pileus ...... pallidus sordide I. subflavescens")

from big fruitbodies ("2-5 unc. latus"), soon with a rather strongly broken-up

surface of the discedens imbricato cap ["pileus . . . glaber sed in squamulas (Hydno

" also his Bolet. carinthiacus Pers. . . . subsimilis)"]. Compare remark, . . (Wulf. .)

si non idem, saltim varietas." To me the fungus that was fully described by von

Wulfen as Boletus subsquamosus and subsequently renamed Boletus carinthiacus Pers.

is Albatrellus ovinus the related A. similis quite certainly (or very closely species Pouz.).

In any case I cannot detect the slightest indication that a species of Boletopsis was admixed in Fries's conception of 1815. The flesh ("caro dura alba crassiuscula

does with that the flesh immutabilis") certainly not agree genus. (In A. ovinus is

firm but and become when fragile may yellowish old.)

It was this conception that was entered in the "Systema" (Fries, 1821: 346),

hence I can see no reason why the epithet 'subsquamosus' could possibly be taken

for of On theother hand it is that this occasion up a species Boletopsis Fayod. true on

Fries started to associate Polyporus subsquamosus with Boletopsis by appending two varieties which that The fibrilloso belong to ("pileo cinereo . .. genus. description .

Pileus and the reference to "Mich. Stipes saepe squamosus. .. . margine villosus")

I. yo.f. 2", figuring a form ofBoletopsis leucomelaenashow that variety "|ß. P. repandus”

of Fries had very probably belongs to Boletopsis. Variety “γ. P. leucomelas”, which

is leucomelaena itself. not seen any specimens, Boletopsis

Still later Fries (1863-4: 33 pi. 33) published under the name Polyporus subsquamosus

which is authors call a plate most probably why European started to Boletopsis

the P. almost convinced that the grisea by name subsquamosus. I am plate represents giant fruitbodies of B. leucomelaena that are paler than usual rather than old ones of B. grisea. It is still not certain that B. grisea really occurs in Sweden; I have

searched recent Swedish literature in vain for clearly recognizable records of it.

Lundell No. noted: (1946: 5 1309)

leucomelas. Fries “P. subsquamosus L. ex Fr. is probably only a large and pale form of P.

νin P. neither its its leuco- reports Stirp. agri femsjon. (p. 58) subsquamosus (but β repandus nor

in I for it there in the melas) as growing ('passim') Femsjo. sought years 1937, 1939, 1940 and but in P. in localities. I also P. in 1943, vain, finding leucomelas some found leucomelas that wood from which f. Bot. P. near Uppsala O. Rob. Fries (Ark. 6: 15 p. 28) reports

should be so and subsquamosus. It admitted, however, that I have never seen pale giant

those described and illustrated Fries in Sv. atl. specimens as by svamp. (p. 33, pi. 53) under

Another of this should also be the name of P. subsquamosus. interpretation species perhaps taken into viz. that it and thick form of consideration, may represent an unusually large

P. melanopus Sw. ex Fr."-—Lundell (I.e.).

I am inclined to think that Lundell meant "a large and pale form ofP. leucomelas” literally and that Boletopsis griseus did not occur to him. Donk: On European polypores 257

t i 1 i a e. — Polyporus tiliae S. Schulz. 1866: 42 (nomen nudum) apud Fr. 1874:

528, 747-

another The is Polyporus tiliae S. Schulz. presents problem. following a description which compounded from those published by Fries and Kalchbrenner, both of were

apparently based on portions of the type collection:

Fruitbody vividly ochraceous, solitary. Cap orbicular, flat, slightly

depressed above stem, glabrous, not scaly, thin-fleshy, gradually thinner toward margin; margin acute, often lobed. Hymenophore concolorous, somewhat decur- Stalk somewhat rent; pores large, irregular; walls becoming lacerate. excentric, narrowed at the base, firm, not black, short, $-f" X 3-5'", solid. Flesh soft, coriaceous-tough, a little less coloured. Spores big, oblong-ovoid, smooth, with

5 an oil-drop, white. — On rotting branches of Tilia.

with the The well-developed stalk lacking a black rind even at its base together lack of the scales on the cap would exclude P. squamosus and P. coronatus; complete

lack of coarse, hyaline hairs (if these had not disappeared or been overlooked) would exclude P. floccipes; finally it is difficult to reconcile the ample-pored forms with the medium-sized of brumalis with the Until spores the P. group description.

other has been made the alternative is to admit some acceptable suggestion only

be: of P. tiliae as an autonomous species. A possibility might old specimens P.floccipes in which the of the scales the and the bristle-like disappearance on cap hyaline, soft, hairs were caused by a combination of adverse weather conditions, handling, and poor drying. It is not entirely out of the question that P. intermedins Rostk. represents

a similar condition of the same species.

Another reason for maintaining P. tiliae tentatively is that a species answering

its exist North America. to description seems to in Relying on published descriptions

I would the of tiliae with P. Sumstine suggest identity P. pennsylvanicus (igoy: 137, n.v.), the 'original description of which fully agrees: rather small cap (2-6 cm in

diam.) without scales, similar colour, short, non-blackening stalk, and habitat (fallen branches). Overholts {1914- io8) and Lowe (1934: 29) supplied redescrip-

tions with microscopical details which agree with those of P. floccipes (P. lentus) and

P. Sumstine "fallen branches" the substratum in squamosus (long spores). gave as "on the the original description; Overholts stated, "growing on old logs", and Lowe,

reduced the wood of deciduous trees". Polyporus pennsylvanicus was to synonymy of Graff Graff P. squamosus var. glaber [= Agaricus squamosus glaber Batt.] by ( 1936:

165); in this he was followed by Lowe ( 1942: 28). For various reasons I prefer to leave Battara's species out of consideration.

Another North American equivalent may be P. fagicola Murrill ( 1906 : 35),

from More redecribed by Lowe ( 1934 : 30) as a species distinct P. pennsylvanicus.

Overholts made P. of P. recently (1933: 258) pennsylvanicus a synonym fagicola.

6 una a character Omitted, "pileus. . . alteraque zona, parum conspicua notatus",

tribu recedens". emphasized and ". subzonato a [ I. by Fries, . . pileo Polyporus Mesopus]

I regard this zonation as accidental and of no diagnostic significance. Persoonia Vol. Part 258 5, 3, 1969

of reminds of P. The revised descriptions P.fagicola me P. floccipes (= lentus) (q.v.)

"stem the base" compare, . . . conspicuously hispid, especially near (Lowe, 1.e.).

On the other hand the lack of coarse, hyaline hairs on the cap might be a significant

difference with the latter species.

It is that American author that he interesting to note an thought (almost)

*P. recognized the American fungus in a European collection: “Polyporus melanopus

The is fine hisingeri [P. Karst.], Hedwigia 35: 173. 1896. type [from Finland] a

of the similar which has been called specimen same or a very plant Polyporus fagicola

Murr. in America, differing in being a much larger specimen."- —Lowe (1936: 117).

collections Overholts ( 1953 : 259), in discussing P. fagicola, also mentioned some

that He also might point to a closer relationship of this species to P. squamosum. wrote

that P. boucheanus "seems be similar it would (q.v.) to a species—in fact, appear

be to be identical, but I have seen no specimens." This suggestion would seem to

not and too far-fetched, but Klotzsch stated . . squamoso" "pileo . nonnunquam

the habitat "in truncis emortuis Betulae” for his Favolus his gave as boucheanus; species

disagrees in both characters from P. tiliae.

umbilicatus. — Boletus umbilicatus Scop. 1772: 466 (devalidated name);

Fr. B. umbilicatus Schrank 1892 Ind.: 64 (“mbilicus ”; as synonym), not 1789

Boletus umbilicatus umbilicatus (devalidated name); Scop, per Spreng. 1827; Polyporellus

(Scop, per Spreng.) P. Karst. 1889.

Fries (1821:348) referred this species to Polyporus melanopus var. cyathoiaes =

been it would have P. melanopus (Pers.) ex Fr. sensu stricto. If this had correct,

been logical ifbefore the introductionof laterstarting points for fungi were introduced

This the name had been taken up as an earlier published name for P. melanopus.

for instance A. Karsten was actually done, by Sprengel (Boletus), P. (Polyporellus)

and Romeil (Polyporus), apparently solely on the strength of Fries's identification.

does the identificationof his with Scopoli's protologue not support species Polyporus

melanopus. His diagnosis and description run:

"DIAGN. Pileus absque fasciis et glaber, vertice umbilicato, fusco; porulis albis. / Habitat

in ramulis aridis. / Solitarius, persistens; pileo diametro lin. (7); tubulis tenuissimis, albis; stipite longo, tereti, pileo concolore, basi crassiore."—Scopoli (1772: 466).

the Because the description states that the stalk is of the same colour as cap

("fuscus") identificationwith Polyporus melanopus is practically out of the question. In

view of the incomplete description it is difficult to advance another suggestion.

Stressing the words "tubulis tenuissimis" as well as the habitat the following species

P. come to mind: Polyporus varius (the form with not blackening stalk, see leptocephalus),

P. ciliatus (specimens without bristles, viz. small forms referable to P. lepideus q.v.),

and perhaps P. tubarius.

umbilicatus be treated Being unable to make a choice, I suggest that Boletus as

a nomen dubium. Donk: On European polypous 259

varius. — Boletus varius Pers. 1796: 85 (devalidated name); Polyporus varius

(Pers.) per Fr. 1821.

I firmly believe that the original conception of Boletus varius Pers. completely

overlaps that of Fries's interpretation of Polyporus elegans (q.v.). Persoon's original

description clearly points in this direction: "pileo .. . ochraceo . . colore primo

dilute ochraceus subnitidus, demum obscurior margine subrufescens." The colour and the features of the stalk ("stipite sublaterali elongato ad dimidio deorsim nigro")

"Ad separate it from Polyporus badius (P. picipes). truncos ut plurimum fagineos."

In order to form an accurate opinion about the fungus Persoon had in mind the

be mentioned. Taken in combination will following points may they easily remove somewhat all doubt. The cap is pale ochraceous and shining (while no streaking

is mentioned). The stalk is rather long ('elongate'). The cap is rather small,

6 lateralis (" 1 —3 unc. latus" ) and thin ("4 lin. in medio crassus"). Moreover, Boletus

Bolt. (q.v.) is listed as a synonym.

The modernconception of P. varius is not in accordance with theabove conclusion;

with often it pictures the typical species as having a bigger fruitbody (though not

darker coloured with radiate invariably) a cap, "usually narrow streakings or

of color" In these differences fleckings a lighter (Overholts, 1953- 265). my opinion

are only gradual and the two forms ('varius' and 'elegans' of modern authors)

of variation within these merely extremes a single plastic species; are not really

separable even as varieties. A third extreme variation, or, rather, modification, received the name P. numularius (q.v.).

Many authors have badly confused Polyporus varius with P. badius. Fries (1821:

Bulliard had 332) at first combined the two under the former name, as previously

under the Later Fries excluded done name Boletus calceolus (q.v.). on (1838: 44o)

most of the typical P. varius element as P. elegans, retaining the name for an ill-

with the modern defined group which in the main would seem to coincide conception

form with streaked Bourdot Galzin did not of the big, darker cap. & {1928: 527)

distinguish between P. badius and P. varius; it was left to Pilät to separate P. badius

(P. picipes) again, but not before he had miscalled it Polyporellus varius (reserving the

for the 'varius' in broad inclusive of the name P. elegans complex a sense, big form)

7 (Pilät, 1936: 66). Soon afterwards he took up the name Polyporellus picipes (Pilat,

'937- 99)-

vernalis. — [Polyporus cyathoides (Sw. per Fr.) Quel, sensu Quel. 1872 : 270];

Polyporus vernalis Fr. 1874: 527;

= [Polyporus vernalis Fr.sensu Quel. 1880: 195pi.3/ 13]; Polyporus queletianus

Sacc. Sacc. & Trav. 1911: 490, apud & Trav. 1912: 258.

6 This measurement reads "1J-2 unc." in Persoon's next description ( 1801 : 524), thus

still smaller. The thickness is not mentioned on this occasion.

' his of the varius instead of P. in his This explains inter alia use name Polyporellus picipes

of discussion 1937 on Page 101. Persoonia Vol. Part 260 5, 3, 1969

When Fries introduced the name Polyporus vernalis for P. cyathoides sensu

he that he had of that this Quel, indicated seen a picture it. I assume was a copy of the one in 1880 in connection with vernalis. Quelet published “[Polyporus] Q. . . .

In litt. ad E. Fries, 1873. P. cyathoides, Jura et Vosges, I. p. 243. P. vernalis Fr.,

de brumalis P." From the it be concluded Hym. p. 527. var. quotation may not

only that Quelet claimed the authorship of the name (hence, P. vernalis Quel, apud

Fr. 1874), but also that Polyporus vernalis as published by Fries and by Quelet are one and the same taxon. Although the descriptions by these authors show some

discrepancies, there seems to be insufficient reason to base a new species ( P. queletianus

Sacc. & Trav.) on the figure that Quelet published in 1880. The discrepancies

be ifit that made in can easily explained is assumed Fries some errors translation,

viz. for herisse de fibrilles "stipite . . . squamoso-fibrilloso" "stipe . ou d'ecailles", . .

and . . . sericeo-striato" for . herisse de soies raides". . "pileo "chapeau .

from the It also appears published figure that Polyporus cyathoides sensu Quel.

= P. queletianus does not belong to Polyporus trib. Pleuropus where Quelet placed his species while he was still identifying it with the Polyporus melanopus subsp. cyathoides

tribe. remark (Sw. per Fr.) Fr. that Fries had placed in that Compare Quelet's

" of "Ressemble Brumalis from is identifiable 1872, au (which Quelet's description with the P. brumalis of the present paper).

Although there is a strong resemblance between Quelet's first description (as

his elaborate Polyporus cyathoides; 1872) and more later one (as Leucoporus brumalis

it be that there also few var. vernalis; Quelet, 1888: 403) may significant are a

— differences: "Ete. Souches" became Sur les ramifies . noteworthy "Printemps. .

above The figure cited shows the fruitbody arising from a twig. Fries's description

which the P. vernalis in (the one by name was validly published) is any case merely a translation of Quelet's first description (with some errors, as indicated above, and with the addition of "[pileo] e carnoso coriaceo").

has often been brumalis either Polyporus vernalis reduced to P. (q.v.) as a variety or a form; it must not be confused with P. brumalis "b. vernalis" Fries ( 1821 : 348), which is a nomenclatively different taxon.

the of vernalis As to identity Polyporus I have no other suggestion than that it

is based small form of P. ciliatus with indumentum both de on a an on cap ("herisse soies raides") and stalk ("herisse de fibrilles ou d'ecailles"). The pores are small

(Quelet: "petits"; Fries: "minutis") in contradistinction to those of P. brumalis, which Quelet [1872: 268) called "oblongs, anguleux"

Kreisel (1963: 134) concluded: “P. vernalis Fr. 1874 ist jedoch ein kahler Pilz, anscheinend eine Form von P. varius Fr. (vergl. Bresadola 1931, Tafel 952)." From

said above As Bresadola's what is this conclusion can in my opinion not be correct. to plate (1931) cited by Kreisel, it looks different from the fungus depicted by Quelet, but I would not refer it to P. varius. Donk: On European polypores 261

RECAPITULATION

The the in Where following recapitulation embodies most of names discussed this paper.

' mentioned the form combinations with no generic names are epithets actually Polyporus’.

Where in the right-hand column no author's citations are given, it will be possible to find

these the in the left hand column. by looking up name (epithet)

agariceus (Konig) ex Berk. An Polyporus umbilicatus Jungh.

— Bres. sensu p.p. =Polyporus anisoporus anisoporus Del. & Mont, apud Mont.

arcularius Fr. (Batsch) per

— sensu auctt. nonn. =Polyporus anisoporus

badius S. F. Schw. (Pers. per Gray)

1 batschii Gmel., Boletus = Polyporus badius

boucheanus (Kl.) Fr. (nomen dubium)

= — sensu Lloyd Polyporusl floccipes

— sensu Bres. =Polyporus anisoporus

brumalis Fr. (Pers.) per

— sensu Bres. =Polyporus ciliatus

calceolus (Bull, per St-Am.) Balbis =Polyporus varius

carinthiacus ovinus Kotl. & P. (Pers.) per Roques =Albatrellus (Schaeff. per Fr.) (or A. similis Pouz.)

ciliatus Fr. Fr. per

coriaceus Boletus = Murrill Fluds., Laetiporus sulphureus (Bull, per Fr.)

coronatus Rostk. = Polyporus squamosus

= — sensu Maleng. Polyporus floccipes

cristatus Fr. = cristatus Kotl. & P. (Schaeff.) per 1821 Albatrellus (Schaeff. per Fr.)

cristatus Fr. = Albatrellus cristatus Kotl. & P. 1838 (Schaeff. per Fr.)

= Fr. cyathoides (Sw. per Fr.) Quel. Polyporus melanopus (Pers.) ex

— sensu Quel. = Polyporus ciliatus

durus Timm, Boletus = Polyporus badius

= varius elegans (Bull.) per Trog Polyporus

— sensu Trog. An Polyporus badius

— sensu Fr. =Polyporus varius, forma or var. floccipes Rostk.

= — sensu Bres. 1903 Polyporus anisoporus globularis Pers. An Polyporus varius

lateralis Bolt, Hook. varius per =Polyporus lentus Berk. =Polyporus floccipes

Fr. Steud.: Fr. forma lepideus per =Polyporus ciliatus,

Fr. varius leptocephalus (Jacq.) per = Polyporus

lobatus Fr. = Murrill (Gmel.) per Laetiporus sulphureus (Bull, per Fr.)

= — sensu Fr. ?

Fr. melanopus (Pers.) per

montagnei Fr. ex Mont. = Coltricia montagnei (Fr. ex Mont.) Murrill

= — Dur. & Mont. Coltricia F. Murrill sensu cinnamomea (Jacq. per S. Gray)

Bres. montagnei = Coltricia montagnei (Fr. ex Mont.) Murrill

numularius Pers. = varius (Bull, per Fr.) Polyporus perennis Batsch, Boletus = Polyporus badius

picipes Fr. — Polyporus badius

queletianus Sacc. & Trav. = Polyporus ciliatus

ramulorum Gmel., Boletus = Polyporus varius

subarcularius (Donk) Bond. = Polyporus brumalis 262 Persoonia Vol. Part 5, 3, 1969

Fr. = Albatrellus ovinus Kotl. & P. subsquamosus (L.) per (Schaeff. per Fr.)

= — Wulf. carinthiacus sensu Polyporus q.v. tiliae S. Schulz. apud Fr. (nomen dubium) An Polyporus floccipes

umbilicatus Scop., Boletus (nomen

dubium)

varius Fr. (Pers.) per

— badius sensu auctt. nonn. = Polyporus vernalis Quel, apud Fr. =Polyporus ciliatus

REFERENCES

BATSCH, A. J. G. C. (1783), Elench. Fung. — (1786), Elench. Fung. Cont. I.

BERKELEY, M.J. (1843) in Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 10. — (1854) in Lond.J. Bot. 6. — (i860), Outl. Brit. Fung.

BOLTON, J. (1788-gi), Hist. Fung. Halif.

BONDARCEV, A. S. (1953), Trut. Griby.

L. G. in Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. Bosc, A. (1811) Magazin 5.

BOURDOT, H. & A. GALZIN (1928), Hym. Fr. "1927".

in Atti I.R. Accad. III — in Annls BRESADOLA, G. (1897) Agiati [Rovereto] 3. (1903) mycol. 1.

— in — in — in Icon, ( 19 15) Hedwigia 56. (1916) Annls mycol. 14. (1931) Bres., mycol. 20.

BULLIARD, J. B. F. (1780-93), Herb. Fr. [Plates], — (1791), Hist. Champ. Fr. 1 [Text],

DONK, M. A. (1933), Revis. niederl. Homob.-Aph. 2.

DURIEU DE MAISONNEUVE, M. C. & I. P. F. C. MONTAGNE (1846-Q) in Dur., Expl. scient.

Bot. (Atl.).

E. M. Obs. — Obs. — — FRIES, (1815), mycol. 1. (1818), mycol. 2. (1921), Syst. mycol. 1.

Index — — Sver. (1832), Syst. mycol. 3, [separately paged], (1838), Epicr. (1860-6),

atl. — gift. Svamp. (1874), Hym. europ. GILBERTSON, R. L. (1954) in Mycologia 46.

F. Ed. GMELIN, J. (1792), C. Linn. Syst. nat., 13, 2 (2). "1791" [= C. Linn. Syst. veg. 2. 1796].

GRAFF, P. W. (1936) in Mycologia 28.

W. Fl. Ed. HUDSON, (1778), angl., 2, 2.

JACQUIN, N. J. (1778) in Miscnea austr. 1. KLOTZSCH, J. F. (1833) in Linnaea [1826-82] 8.

P. & A. MAUBLANC Ic. sel. KONRAD, (1935), Fung. 5.

H. in Feddes nov. 68. KREISEL, (1963) Reprium Sp. Reg. veg.

LINNAEUS, C. (1753), Sp. PI. — (1755), Fl- suec., Ed. 2.

C. G. Writ. — Writ. — LLOYD, (1908a), Mycol. 3 (Pol. Iss.). (1908b), Mycol. 2 (Lett. 22).

Writ. (1911), Mycol. 3 (Syn. Ovin.).

LOWE, J. L. (1934), Polyporac. New York St. (Pil. spec.) in Bull. N.Y. St. Coll. For. 6 (ib)

[= Techn. Publ. 41]. — (1942), Polyporac. New York St. (except Poria) in Bull. N.Y.

For. Techn. Publ. — in St. Coll. 15 (3) [= 60]. (1956) Mycologia 48.

in & Fasc. — in & LUNDELL, S. (1937) Lund. Nannf., Fungi exs. suec. 9-10. (1946) Lund.

Nannf., Fungi exs. suec. Fasc. 27-28.

G. in Bull. Soc. Fr. — in Bull. Soc. bot. Fr. MALENgoN, (1929) mycol. 45 (Atl.). (1952) 99 (10). MICHELI, P. A. (1729), Nova PI. Gen.

P. F. C. in Annls Sei. II — in Annls Sei. MONTAGNE, J. (1836) nat. (Bot.) 5. (1845) nat.

III (Bot.) 4.

W. A. in — in 6. MURRILL, (1904) Torreya 4. (1906) Torreya

OVERHOLTS, L. O. (1914) in Ann. Missouri bot. Gdn 1. — (1953), Polyporac. U.S., Alaska, & Canada (Univ. Michigan Stud., Sei. Ser. 19). Donk: On European polypores 263

PERSOON, C. H. (1794) in Neues Mag. Bot. 1. — (1796), Obs. mycol. 1. — (1797), Tent.

Disp. meth. Fung. — (1800), Comment. Schaeff. Ic. pictas. — (1801), Syn. Fung. ■—•

(1825), Mycol. europ. 2. PETCH, T. (1916) in Ann. R. bot. Gdns Peradenyia 6.

A. in Beih. bot. — in Eur. PILAT, (1936) Cbl. (B) 56. (1937), Polyporac. Atl. Champ. 3. 1936-42.

POUZAR, Z. (1966) in Folia geobot. phytotax. bohemoslov. 1.

L. in Mem. Soc. Emul. MontbeliardII — in Bull. Soc. bot. Fr. QUELET, (1872) 5. (1879) 25.

— in Bull. Soc. Amis Sci. Rouan II — Fl. Fr. "1878". (1880) nat. 15. (1888), mycol. ROSTKOVIUS, F. W. T. (1848) in Deutschl. Fl. (ed. J. Sturm) (III. Abt., Pilze) Hefte 27-28.

SACCARDO, P. A. & G. B. TRAVERSO (191 1) in Syll. Fung. 20. — (1912) in Syll. Fung. 21.

C. Bavaria SCHAEFFER, J. (1774), Fung. nasc. 4 (Ind.).

H. A. Fl. SCHRADER, (1794), Spic. germ.

SCHULZER VON MUGGENBURG, S. (1866) in S. Schulz., Kanitz, & Knapp in Verh. zool.-

bot. Ges. Wien 16.

A. Fl. Ed. SCOPOLI, J. (1772), earn., 2.

L. SECRETAN, (1833), Mycogr. suisse 3.

STEUDEL, E. G. (1824), Nomencl. bot. PI. crypt.

D. R. in SUMSTINE, (1907) J. Mycol. 13 (n.v.).

O. in Handl. Vet. Akad. SWARTZ, (1810) Nya svenska 31.

in Flora TROG, J. G. (1832) 15 (II). WILLDENOW, K. L. (1797), Fl. berol. Prodr.

WULFEN, F. X. VON (1789) in Colnea Bot. (ed. Jacq.) 2. "1788".